Talk:Prince Joseph of Lovia
Two things: #I believe the Line of Succession was to be expanded with Arthur III's descendents, which still hasn't happened even though it should have #Is Prince Joseph going to take over the throne as an active new monarch? Pretty cool. ::The Master's Voice 09:16, September 23, 2011 (UTC) 1, Arthur III's descendents were removed... just let it stay that way. Lashawn is inactive anyway. 2, Nope, he's just another prince to make the royal family a bit more fertile as you requested. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:12, September 23, 2011 (UTC) :Well: #The descendents of Arthur III where never removed - there was a discussion about including them, the law was changed after a majority voted on it and since then, the law has gone in effect and nothing has been done with it. Based on this law, however, they are in fact entitled to be in the LoS. This is very clear from a legal point of view. #I am glad another prince is included "to make the Royal Family more fertile". Still, there are nine more people who ought to be included on the Line of Succession. To be precise: as we speak, they already are in the Line of Succession, they just haven't been written in as such. The law clearly mentions all of Arthur I's descendents, without making any exception for biological offspring born out of wedlock for whatever reason. :Hope this clearifies things, TM. The Master's Voice 21:01, September 23, 2011 (UTC) As I said, the Lashawns were removed from the royal family. I would very strongly prefer they just god damn be removed instead of adding them and creating so many inaccuracies and things that don't make sense, the most serious of which is that Dimi should not have become King. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:37, September 23, 2011 (UTC) :You're looking in the wrong direction, TM. The law wasn't changed untill well after Dimitri had already been inaugurated as our reigning monarch. Because he is currently the reigning monarch, his future children will be right behind him as his heirs (untill he fathers children with his wife). Thus his illegitimate nephews and their offspring can be, and should be, in the Line of Succession of the Lovian throne. They will not be the heirs to the throne, they will be last in line to the throne, at the bottom of the list, but still they will be in there. They were never removed, they simply weren't elligable for the LoS untill very recently when the laws where changed. As a result of that, they ought to be on the list. This is a clear and undeniable fact. Period. The Master's Voice 11:07, September 24, 2011 (UTC) I'd prefer to remove them. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:42, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :I don't. And the law says they should be in. If they are added below all the others it won't make much of a difference, so I see little reason for you not to support that. As it is already in the law, there really isn't much reason for discussion. The Master's Voice 11:44, September 24, 2011 (UTC) I'd prefer to remove them because they removed themselves a long time ago. Besides, BastardRoyale is probably your sock, anyway. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:59, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :If they aren't in the LoS now, you can't remove them. You cannot simply ignore the law, that has passed by a legally required majority, either. So maybe I should you just go ahead and add them? The Master's Voice 12:02, September 24, 2011 (UTC) They removed themselves from the LoS, just read the Philip Bradly-Lashawn page. I don't think they should be part of it because they removed themselves, which is allowed by the Constitution. And, why are we discussing this on the Prince Joseph page? XD —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:05, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :It didn't say anything about Philip's brother George and his children. Hell, he doesn't even have a page (Horton made one at some point but it got deleted because apparantly it was kinda crappy). The Master's Voice 12:08, September 24, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, but since I don't like them I'd prefer to just say he isn't in. :D —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:10, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :This isn't really going anywhere, bro. :) The Master's Voice 12:13, September 24, 2011 (UTC) Don't add them. They aren't needed, and the royal family is fertile enough. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:19, September 24, 2011 (UTC) If you want more heirs, maybe add a third child to Arthur II, as a sibling to Lucy and Noah, and give them four or five descendants. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:46, September 24, 2011 (UTC) That would be good. Maybe I could do the page. HORTON11 13:53, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :Why make any more if there are already nine people available? And why remove my edits if the law supports them? The Master's Voice 14:00, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :PS: It doesn't get ANY clearer then this... The Master's Voice 14:03, September 24, 2011 (UTC) ::I didn't mean remove the Lashawns, just adding more members. I actually find quite a few problems with the Royal family: ::1. Everyone is a Prince or Princess while in real life more distant members are just regular citizens (but with the Noble surname) ::2. The line of succession (even with the Lashawns) is tine, compared to the UK or even Monaco's. ::So I do think we need more members, even if they are not officially part of the Royal family (just in the LoS). HORTON11 14:37, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :::Horton, you didn't say the Lashawn's need be removed, it was TimeMaster who stated that. Now it appears you and me are very much on the same line here! Including Arthur III (out of wedlock) descendents would add nine young and fertile people to the LoS. I don't think it would then be neccesary to invent new characters, but I guess it couldn't hurt. Also, how about some children being born to the younger members of the family? Like a little royal babyboom? The Master's Voice 14:45, September 24, 2011 (UTC) ::::We could do that, some of the members are that age, but still very young. If we added another sibling to Lucy then maybe their descendants could be in their mid/late 20's and be of childbearing age. HORTON11 15:12, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :::::Didn't Dimitri's nephew father a child at a rather young age? Dimitri is of about the same age, and has already married (and, in the past, mentioned the desire for an heir to the throne). They could have children without adding yet another sibling. The Master's Voice 15:14, September 24, 2011 (UTC) Dimitri doesn't have a nephew. Prince Sebastian may be what you're talking about. Princess Alice (his daughter) was born when he was 24, but that's not too young. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 15:56, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :Correction: he has two nephews, who are his father's brother's sons... Prince Sebastian is his first cousin once removed, I believe. And of course, having a daughter at 24 is definetely not "too young". Although typically, members of the Noble Family have children when they are older, and also marry when they are older - Dimitri is the first family member to have been married at such a young age - not even in his twenties. Like his nephews, he is "a deviation to the rest of the family", looking at his personal life... to use your words, TM. :P The Master's Voice 16:07, September 24, 2011 (UTC) No, Sebastian and Dimitri and second cousins, no times removed. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:58, September 25, 2011 (UTC)